Apostate Logical Fallacies -- Part 1

by logansrun 43 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  logansrun

  Let me start out by saying that I would like nothing better than to see the Society totally disappear one day and lose it’s controlling grip upon it’s members. This forum is probably one of the most frequented sites for doubting JWs and “lurkers” so I think it is important to be as skilled at combating the Witnesses as is possible. Not every argument made against someone or something is a good one. This is especially true in dealing with this religion.

  I don’t claim to be a master of logic nor am I flawless in my argumentation. But, I do think that there are some flaws that are frequently made on this discussion board and I would like to point these out. Hopefully, by initiating this type of discussion we can all become better adept at both helping others out of the Society and in reflecting on our own experiences as Witnesses. So, here we go…

  1) Overgeneralizing individual Witnesses (or bodies of elders) behavior/thinking to be a symptom of the entire organization. I see this fallacy time and time again. Often it takes the form of an extremely emotional and bitter experience that is presumed to be damning proof that the Society is wicked, evil and is hopelessly corrupt. This is fallacious because it makes the sweeping assumption that the negative behavior is supported or condoned by the Society when, in fact, it might not be at all. For example:

  “A witness that I used to work for was caught cheating on his taxes. See the JW’s are liars”

  “My parents didn’t allow us to watch television because they said it is demonized. Aren’t the JWs nutty?!”

  “The elders on my judicial committee were so cold and uncaring with me. What an unloving organization!”

  “The Presiding Overseers wife used to say that blood is an ingredient in M&Ms. Witness beliefs are crazy!”

  None of these examples are very good arguments against the Society as a whole. In fact, many of the bad experiences people have with JWs are caused by actions that the Society does not encourage. In the examples above note that the Society strongly encourages their followers to be honest taxpayers, they never said it was wrong to watch television, they try to encourage elders to be loving (whether this is misguided or not) and they cannot be held responsible for whatever nutty beliefs individual JWs may fall for. So, from a purely logical point of view, none of the reasons above are very good cause for leaving the JWs or for stating they are not the true religion.

  If your congregation wasn’t the most loving in the world that does not prove that the JWs are wrong as a whole. Congregations are often encouraged to be loving and outgoing to their members in the pages of the Watchtower. It is not necessarily the Society’s fault if individuals do not heed that advice. For every example of a really nasty Witness (and I have a few in mind), one could be given of a very kind, humble and wise JW. In short, you cannot judge a religion by one of it’s members.

  Keep in mind too that many of the actions taken by Witnesses that are harmful, wrong or illegal are often dealt with by the Society. I know of Witness elders that engaged in child molestation and fraud. They were disfellowshipped. Arguments that a Witness committed murder or some other heinous act do nothing in the way of combating the Society, for the organization takes strong steps to correct and discipline people like that (sometimes to a fault).

  This does not mean that accounts like the above are not useful in any way. Certainly, unsavory accounts of the JWs help show that the organization is not nearly as perfect, loving and happy as they make themselves out to be. But, it does not PROVE that they are wrong in their teachings or doctrines, nor should experiences like this be used as exemplifying the average Witness. As for “evil” elders, I believe a much better argument is made when one does not just leave the bad experience on its own, but asks “why didn’t the holy spirit work through this brother?” When you make that connection you transfer from the realm of just another bad example to one of doctrinal significance. You transfer from the realm of emotion to that of logic. Usually, though, this is not done.

  Actually, many ex-dubs fall into this trap, I believe, because the Society falls into it all the time. We are trained to think this way if we were Witnesses for any length of time. The Watchtower will often recount the injustices of other religions and use those bad examples as being a litmus test for whether they are true Christians or not. That is illogical for them to do, but it is also illogical to use this same tactic against the Society.

  Finally, many overgeneralize and exacerbate the Society’s faults because they exhibit the same black/white thinking they were used to as JWs. It’s easy to fall into this trap. The Society paints all outsiders as evil, misled and ignorant and it is human nature to do the same to them – especially since we are personally involved! But, the fact remains it is not a very accurate way of viewing either group – both Witnesses and non-Witnesses.

  Comments?

  Next up……Part 2 (coming soon)
• 

  Swan

  Overgeneralizing?

  Guilty.

  I am trying to do better not to overgeneralize, but it is hard since the JWs brought me up to be this way.

  Seriously, I am working on it and I do know there are many good JWs in the world.

  Tammy
• 

  Euphemism

  Great post, logansrun. I look forward to the continuation of the series.
• 

  SixofNine

  None of these examples are very good arguments against the Society as a whole.

  I'm not so sure, and here's why: each one of those examples, I've heard repeated, substance there-of, over and over and over and over again. The pattern is very clear to those of us who've "been around" the organization for long. If the society is god's organization, such stories should be rare to non-existant, not the sort of thing that gets every head nodding in recognition at an ex-witness gathering. Therefore, the society is not god's organization, and you are going to hell.

  What say you smarty pants logical boy?

  *reads thread more*

  but wait, there's more!

  In the examples above note that the Society strongly encourages their followers to be honest taxpayers,

  But but but... actually, I'll give you that one. Still, I think they fail to motivate their followers by example to be honest and unhypocritical. In fact, by example, they encourage hypocricy. That's a pretty big failing when you think about it, coming from god's organization and all.

  they never said it was wrong to watch television,

  In so many words? Yeah, they pretty well have said as much... they demonized everything, especially TV.

  they try to encourage elders to be loving (whether this is misguided or not)

  I'm not sure what your disclaimer refers to, but it may be technically accurate to say they "encourage elders to be loving", but let's be honest, in practice, they often turn good men (or at least men who had the potential to be good) into assholes. Judicial committees and the information gathering quest leading up to them are not "loving" arrangements. Over pressured elders given responsibilities they shouldn't (and can't) handle are simply not "big" enough men to be elders and be loving. I don't fault them too much, but it does point right back to the system.

  and they cannot be held responsible for whatever nutty beliefs individual JWs may fall for.

  Well sure they can. Jesus, they exert amazing influence over these peoples lives, let's see them actually educate the poor bastards (*crosses self*) for once. Hell, they have their rapt attention for 5 hours a week! With nutty medical advice being given from the WT, it's no wonder the individuals have nutty beliefs themselves.

  So, from a purely logical point of view, none of the reasons above are very good cause for leaving the JWs or for stating they are not the true religion.

  I think they are. Perhaps your filthy godless athiestic viewpoint has left you with a low standard for what might constitute true religion?

  As for “evil” elders, I believe a much better argument is made when one does not just leave the bad experience on its own, but asks “why didn’t the holy spirit work through this brother?” When you make that connection you transfer from the realm of just another bad example to one of doctrinal significance. You transfer from the realm of emotion to that of logic. Usually, though, this is not done.

  I agree, but then again, I think this point is not lost on most ex-witnesses. It's just that; how many times and how many ways can you say, God does not now, and never did, have anything at all to do with Jehovahs Witnesses? But gossip never goes out of style ;-)
• 

  Euphemism

  Six... I certainly agree with you that there's value in recounting those experiences.

  What I think logansrun is objecting to--at least, what I object to--is the attempt to generalize these experiences as if they were representative of all JWs. I've heard people say, for example, that all elders are uneducated assholes, that all pioneers are unemployed welchers, that all elders' wives are nosy gossips, etc. Personally, that sort of stereotyping is what I object to, and I agree with logan that its counterproductive to presenting the truth about the truth.

  As a side note, I can't help noting that Logan felt obligated to justify pointing out logical fallacies, by showing that it actually works to improve our efforts against the WTS in the long run. As if truth needed any justification. Not that I'm blaming Logan... but if he hadn't included the disclaimer, and hadbeen attacked as a pro-WTS apologist, that would have been a pretty sad demonstration of groupthink.
• 

  SixofNine

  I agree that all experiences should be looked at thru clear lenses. But I think those lenses will show a pattern of behaviour that is far to endemic for any reasonable person to believe that god is leading this bunch of wife swapping miscreants! full stop
• 

  rem

  Yes, this is formally known as the fallacy of Composition. You cannot logically draw a conclusion about the Society as a whole based on a small sample of JW's. Now if a good number of JW's behaved a particular way, then that may be a reflection of the Society.

  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

  Description of Composition

  The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

  The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the "reasoning" would look something like this.

  1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc. 

  2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc. 

  This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

  It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed.

  The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

  1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.

  2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

  That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.

  It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.

  Examples of Composition

  1. A main battle tank uses more fuel than a car. Therefore, the main battle tanks use up more of the available fuel in the world than do all the cars.

  2. A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, tigers, as a group, eat more food than do all the humans on the earth.

  3. Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.

  4. "Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the team is a great team." This is fallacious since the superstars might not be able to play together very well and hence they could be a lousy team.

  5. "Each part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is a masterpiece. So, the whole show is a masterpiece." This is fallacious since a show could have great acting, great special effects and such, yet still fail to "come together" to make a masterpiece.

  6. "Come on, you like beef, potatoes, and green beens, so you will like this beef, potato, and green been casserole." This is fallacious for the same reason that the following is fallacious: "You like eggs, icecream, pizza, cake, fish, jello, chicken, taco sauce, soda, oranges, milk, egg rolls, and yogurt so you must like this yummy dish made out of all of them."

  7. Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans.

  rem
• 

  refiners fire

  All those organizational publications are only words in a book. Hundreds of people read the book, and every one of them puts their own little slant on things. We saw an example recently where 'amazing" posted about a CO who told him the 144,000 had to have 'celestail sex' with Jesus in heaven. Hundreds of people will read the term "celestial sex" and will put their own slant on that. The organization is rigid about many things, such as shunning apostates, but with that ruling there are active dubs that will openly chat with a df person as though nothing ever happened. individuals putting their own interp onto doctrine. So its no surprise people here recite contradictory experiences.
• 

  logansrun

  Six of Nine,

  Good points, and this is exactly the type of conversation I hoped to generate by this thread. I think you are taking the position I probably would have if someone else had written what I did. THIS is critical thinking -- looking at things from more than one point of view and making an argument to back up your position.

  All the same, I don't totally agree with you (surprise, surprise). I think that what you say is true, but that I see over and over -- ad nauseum -- the same gripes without what appears to be an eyeblink of consideration. And keep in mind that many of the gripes from ex-dubs about "personalities" in the organization are simply human nature. Stay long enough in any church, office, school or family and you will encounter the same things: the nosey housewife, the brown-noseing psychofant, the greed, the dishonesty, the discourteousness. Such is the nature of homo sapiens and the JWs often are no worse or no better than anyone else.

  Remember too that the Bible is the be-all-end-all for the JWs (or so they think) and they will simply retort to your objections that the apostles and first century Christians had as many problems as they do now in the organization. They're probably right! So, in my book at least, the Bible itself is the problem. But that's another thread entirely...

  Thanks for the rebuttel, though...

  Bradley

  hehe..."smarty pants, logical boy"
• 

  logansrun

  Euphemism,

  Thanks. You said:

  As a side note, I can't help noting that Logan felt obligated to justify pointing out logical fallacies, by showing that it actually works to improve our efforts against the WTS in the long run. As if truth needed any justification. Not that I'm blaming Logan... but if he hadn't included the disclaimer, and hadbeen attacked as a pro-WTS apologist, that would have been a pretty sad demonstration of groupthink.

  Very true. And, indeed it is my intention to try and refine our arguments against the Society as much as possible for the purpose of trying to battle against it. Is it any wonder that one of the reasons why everyone feels Ray Franz's Crisis of Conscience was so valuable to them is it's honesty and lack of personal attacks? Rarely does Franz engage in emotionalism or ad hominems in his book -- something many of us can learn from.

  Bradley